View Full Version : Missing titles in bestsellers list


gabcarac
01-12-2008, 09:21 PM
I was browsing bestsellers list on the eBook Store from Sony and found this interesting comment:

7 Playing for Pizza (10/01/2007) John Grisham

Currently Unavailable. Some titles are not yet available due to rights issues, and some titles are not good candidates for eBooks (e.g., coffee table books). We are always adding new titles, so check again soon!

It's as if they are blaming publishers in front of their customers (who other would browse their store) and also apologizing for not having the book available for sale. What I found interesting is that they listed the book at all! They didn't hide from the fact that it was unavailable.

link (http://ebookstore.sony.com/lists/bestsellers/30022_1.html)

kezza
01-12-2008, 11:56 PM
Well, they want you to email the publishers and request that title. They also want you to email them and request the title. It would be silly to hide it, if they're reprinting a top 10 bestseller list, it would be pretty obvious if they skipped #7. Also, they can use that to get their customers to make noise with publishers for the book.
I strongly suspect that the publisher and/or author *is* the reason the book isn't available in Sony's store, so why not point the finger at them? It's in their best interest to acquire the largest library they can, and anything to pressure publishers to make their content available aids that effort.

HarryT
01-13-2008, 04:38 AM
That particular book doesn't appear to be available in ANY eBook format, so it's not just Sony.

spooky69
01-13-2008, 07:33 AM
Ya blew it. I love ya, Lar, but ya blew it.

JSWolf
01-13-2008, 09:12 AM
How did anyone blow anything? Spook69, why do you have this need to berate Sony for things they are not doing wrong?

dhbailey
01-13-2008, 10:11 AM
I don't even understand Spooky69's reply!

But I suspect that John Grisham may be such a powerful author that simply isn't in love with technology and refuses to go along with these infernal newfangled devices.

Martha Grimes is another author who sells enough to have clout with the publishers and who replied to an email I sent her (she obviously doesn't hate all technology!) by saying that she prefers to remain about 20 years behind the curve and so I shouldn't expect any ebook versions of her books and she hoped I would continue to enjoy reading her books on paper.

JSWolf
01-13-2008, 10:51 AM
Some authors do not want to have electronic versions of their books. This is their right to do so. But it is also our right to not purchase their books at all if they won't release eBook editions. So as I see it, if I want to read eBooks, I can purchase from the available eBooks and those that won't get with today won't get my money. It is my choice.

astra
01-13-2008, 11:19 AM
I don't even understand Spooky69's reply!

I am second to it and I blame my English.

edsohsmith
01-13-2008, 02:55 PM
It may be that some authors, such as John Grisham, have some control over their digital rights. I would suspect Grisham's books are unavailable as ebooks because he is unhappy with the compensation the publisher is offering.

astra
01-13-2008, 03:24 PM
It may be that some authors, such as John Grisham, have some control over their digital rights. I would suspect Grisham's books are unavailable as ebooks because he is unhappy with the compensation the publisher is offering.

Ha-ha.
Does he get a better deal for paper back editions? I would not believe it.

greyparrot
01-14-2008, 08:37 AM
It may be that some authors, such as John Grisham, have some control over their digital rights. I would suspect Grisham's books are unavailable as ebooks because he is unhappy with the compensation the publisher is offering.

They are available on audiobooks (audible.com) and I've seen eReader (pdb) copies on newsgroups, I don't know where they came from if they are not released as ebooks. I didn't find any legal copies on the normal ebook stores on the net.

dhbailey
01-14-2008, 08:50 AM
Some powerful authors withhold electronic editions because of the economic issue -- if they get 15% of what the publisher gets, then they'll get more from an $8 paperback than from a $4 ebook. And we're all complaining that we want the ebooks to cost less than the paper books because of lower distribution and production costs. Yet contracts are in percentages, so lower prices mean lower profits for writers. We can't have it both ways.

Other authors are against ebooks because of moral issues -- they are firmly entrenched in the "to be a book worth reading it has to be on paper" school of traditionalists.

No matter where an author stands, I encourage all of us to let them know 1) if we want them to release ebook versions for the Sony Reader; 2) that we won't be buying any paper books from them anymore (if we make that decision); 3) that they might reconsider if the lack of ebook editions is due to technological phobia.

Additionally, it is important to let the publishers know that you won't be buying any paper versions of their books so if they want your money they'll need to release ebook versions. That way they can figure out how to persuade all their authors (financially and philosophically) to agree.

And the third prong is to let the Sony Connect store know which authors and/or specific books you want them to sell so that they can then go to the publishers with some numbers which will have more impact.

Gradually the world is changing so that more and more books are being released in ebook format, but it takes time and patience. I remember wishing for movies I loved to be released first in VHS format and later in DVD format, and also for older jazz artists to be released in CD format. Just when I had given up hope, there would be what I had been waiting for, staring at me from a shelf in a CD store or video store.

kezza
01-14-2008, 11:23 AM
I've seen eReader (pdb) copies on newsgroups, I don't know where they came from if they are not released as ebooks.

They come from very dedicated people with scanners and a lot of time.

JSWolf
01-14-2008, 11:39 AM
That is why I do say that a lot of eBooks available on the darknet are eBooks that when created were not then available as eBooks.

tompe
01-14-2008, 12:27 PM
Some powerful authors withhold electronic editions because of the economic issue -- if they get 15% of what the publisher gets, then they'll get more from an $8 paperback than from a $4 ebook. And we're all complaining that we want the ebooks to cost less than the paper books because of lower distribution and production costs. Yet contracts are in percentages, so lower prices mean lower profits for writers. We can't have it both ways.


But that must be a problem with the authors contract. If the distribution and production cost is lower they have to get a higher percentage in their contracts.

HarryT
01-15-2008, 03:27 AM
They come from very dedicated people with scanners and a lot of time.

aka "criminals" :(

astra
01-15-2008, 05:44 AM
aka "criminals" :(

I would not call them criminals.
If not for their dedication, our eInk readers would have lost in value and many would not even consider buying them.

kezza
01-15-2008, 11:45 PM
I would not call them criminals.
If not for their dedication, our eInk readers would have lost in value and many would not even consider buying them.

And as far as I'm concerned, owning an electronic copy of something you own in a physical form isn't illegal.
If the publishers and authors don't want their books to be sold electronically, they essentially consent to piracy.

cmbs
01-15-2008, 11:49 PM
If the publishers and authors don't want their books to be sold electronically, they essentially consent to piracy.

That is absolute nonsense designed to make you feel better about doing something illegal.

In my humble opinion, of course.

astra
01-16-2008, 08:23 AM
That is absolute nonsense designed to make you feel better about doing something illegal.

In my humble opinion, of course.

Do you like to read fantasy?

JSWolf
01-16-2008, 09:34 AM
aka "criminals" :(
Is distributing a scanned book worse then distributing a code so people can steal $50 worth of eBooks?

HarryT
01-16-2008, 10:22 AM
If Sony deliberately leaked that coupon code, then it's not "stealing", is it? If it was only intended for new purchasers then, as I commented in the original thread on the subject, I personally considering it little short of theft (and certainly fraud) to use it.

kezza
01-17-2008, 11:12 PM
That is absolute nonsense designed to make you feel better about doing something illegal.

In my humble opinion, of course.

Like I said, I don't see having a digital copy of a book I own in paper form as illegal. Anything beyond that you're assuming I do, without even bothering to ask.

cmbs
01-17-2008, 11:40 PM
Like I said, I don't see having a digital copy of a book I own in paper form as illegal. Anything beyond that you're assuming I do, without even bothering to ask.

Well, having an illegal digital copy of a book you own in paper form is illegal, regardless of your opinion of it. Your opinion has nothing to do with the law. Perhaps you don't see it as illegal because you're busy telling yourself lies to comfort your guilty conscience?

If you don't have any illegal digital books, then you're right, I have the wrong impression, and I apologize.

And as far as I'm concerned, owning an electronic copy of something you own in a physical form isn't illegal.
If the publishers and authors don't want their books to be sold electronically, they essentially consent to piracy.

That is your comment I was responding to. Again, your opinion has nothing to do with the law. Your statement that publishers are consenting to piracy by not selling electronic versions is nonsense, and it sounds like the self-comforting, why-it's-ok-for-me-to-break-the-law type to me. If you're not doing anything illegal, you certainly seem to be defending or supportive of those who do.

They come from very dedicated people with scanners and a lot of time.

That comment strengthens the impression, it sounds an awful lot like praise of lawbreakers.

So are you saying you do, or do not, have digital books that the law would consider to be illegal?

acemccloudxx
01-18-2008, 11:22 AM
I do not believe, cmbs, that the law is quite as cut and dried as you seem to believe that it is. Specifically, you seem to be ignoring the concept of "fair use" which gives buyers rights to make use of what they bought, and not necessarily in ways that the creator of that material would approve of.

I do not believe that it has been conclusively determined whether or not possession of a digital scan of a book that you own is or is not acceptable fair use. If you can provide a reference that shows otherwise, I would like to see it, otherwise, I believe that you are incorrect.

HarryT
01-18-2008, 11:28 AM
I do not believe, cmbs, that the law is quite as cut and dried as you seem to believe that it is. Specifically, you seem to be ignoring the concept of "fair use" which gives buyers rights to make use of what they bought, and not necessarily in ways that the creator of that material would approve of.

I do not believe that it has been conclusively determined whether or not possession of a digital scan of a book that you own is or is not acceptable fair use. If you can provide a reference that shows otherwise, I would like to see it, otherwise, I believe that you are incorrect.

Scanning a book yourself may be "fair use", depending where you live (it is not permitted in the UK, for example). Downloading a copy of a book from the internet is, in most countries, not fair use, even though the end result might be the same - you end up with a scanned copy of the book.

You'll need to make up your own mind whether you consider it "immoral" to download a book that you've bought a paper version of, but for most of us it certainly isn't legal. I don't regard it as moral myself, but I know that many people (whom I completely respect) do.

cmbs
01-18-2008, 01:10 PM
I do not believe, cmbs, that the law is quite as cut and dried as you seem to believe that it is. Specifically, you seem to be ignoring the concept of "fair use" which gives buyers rights to make use of what they bought, and not necessarily in ways that the creator of that material would approve of.

I do not believe that it has been conclusively determined whether or not possession of a digital scan of a book that you own is or is not acceptable fair use. If you can provide a reference that shows otherwise, I would like to see it, otherwise, I believe that you are incorrect.

Ok. It's immediately obvious that you have never read any legal documents to learn about and understand what Fair Use is. I'd bet you've been getting your information from someone either ignorant or purposely misleading you to make their illegal activities seem ok. I have seen MANY websites with "Fair Use Disclaimers" and it's complete nonsense. Try getting on a legitimate website and learning what Fair Use really is. Because this type of response just proves your ignorance.

And I specifically called the digital versions illegal: if you have any illegal versions, that is illegal, regardless of your opinion. So really, not only are you ignorant of a law you're preaching about (and using to defend illegal activities) but you don't even read the post thoroughly.

tompe
01-18-2008, 01:29 PM
And I specifically called the digital versions illegal: if you have any illegal versions, that is illegal, regardless of your opinion. So really, not only are you ignorant of a law you're preaching about (and using to defend illegal activities) but you don't even read the post thoroughly.

Could you please define what "illegal version" means and give pointers to the law that treats this? I am interested in reading these laws but find it hard to find exactly what people are referring to.

astra
01-18-2008, 01:35 PM
So really, not only are you ignorant of a law you're preaching about (and using to defend illegal activities) but you don't even read the post thoroughly.

Why do you care?

Are you a policeman?
Working for government?
Are you a writer?
Are you a publisher?
Are you a lawer?

Just curious :rolleyes:

cmbs
01-18-2008, 01:39 PM
Could you please define what "illegal version" means and give pointers to the law that treats this? I am interested in reading these laws but find it hard to find exactly what people are referring to.

This is the US Copyright Office website. You can learn about Fair Use and other copyright laws there. But of course you are not a US citizen, so your laws may be different.

http://www.copyright.gov/

I'll tell you this: Fair Use never allows the use of an entire work, and it never allows use for entertainment purposes. So all claims of Fair Use on all these sites with illegal music, etc, is absolute nonsense.

As far as creating a copy of something you own, for your own use, WITHOUT DISTRIBUTING, I think that's legal in the US, unless the copyright holder has applied different terms of use. Terms of Use are legally binding. So, for example, if an author specifically states that you are not to make digital copies, then it'd be illegal for you to do so.

I am of course talking about United States laws. I live in the US, I have never researched laws of other countries, I have no reason to.

tompe
01-18-2008, 01:55 PM
This is the US Copyright Office website. You can learn about Fair Use and other copyright laws there. But of course you are not a US citizen, so your laws may be different.

http://www.copyright.gov/


This is somewhat useful but i cannot find what you mean by illegal version there. And just reading a bit I cannot find that having a version of something is covered by copyright. What I read is that distributing and obtaining things are covered.

HarryT
01-18-2008, 01:57 PM
Fair Use never allows the use of an entire work, and it never allows use for entertainment purposes.

That is not entirely correct. It is, for example, legal to record the whole of a television programme for the purpose of "time shifting" (ie watching it at a more convenient time).

cmbs
01-18-2008, 02:00 PM
That is not entirely correct. It is, for example, legal to record the whole of a television programme for the purpose of "time shifting" (ie watching it at a more convenient time).

Harry, Fair Use is a specific set of laws, and what I said is correct.

The laws governing recording tv shows, and NOT DISTRIBUTING, would not fall under the Fair Use laws.

I am of course, still talking about US law, I don't know, nor am I going to investigate, UK laws.



Tommy,

I gave you the url, I gave you some comments. The copyright site is not hard to search. I'm not researching for you. If you're interested as you say you are, research it for yourself.

acemccloudxx
01-18-2008, 02:03 PM
Could we please get a moderator to tone things down a bit? I would have to say that cmbs is getting a bit on the abusive side. There is blunt and then there is blunt force trauma.

In any case, you still have not provided a meaningful reference that gives specific information proving me wrong.

HarryT
01-18-2008, 02:09 PM
Harry, Fair Use is a specific set of laws, and what I said is correct.

The laws governing recording tv shows, and NOT DISTRIBUTING, would not fall under the Fair Use laws.



No, I'm sorry, but that very specifically is a matter of "Fair Use", and when video recorders first appeared, movie studios tried to get them outlawed under copyright law on the grounds that the recording of copyrighted TV shows was an imfringement. The court case which decided the matter was the decision of the US Supreme Court:

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices cannot be liable for infringement.

This Supreme Court decision established the general legal principle, which has been applied more recently in file sharing court cases, that a device which has the capability of being used for copyright-infringement purposes can be legally used if it can be shown that it also has significant non-infringing uses.

cmbs
01-18-2008, 02:11 PM
Could we please get a moderator to tone things down a bit? I would have to say that cmbs is getting a bit on the abusive side. There is blunt and then there is blunt force trauma.

In any case, you still have not provided a meaningful reference that gives specific information proving me wrong.


The US Copyright Office is THE reference for copyright laws. The fact you don't find it "meaningful" is more evidence that you don't want to know the law. That's fine, but if you're going to preach about things you clearly don't know, your ignorance will show. Another fact which is fine with me.

I'm sorry that facts hurt you. ouch.

HarryT
01-18-2008, 02:19 PM
The US Copyright Office is THE reference for copyright laws. The fact you don't find it "meaningful" is more evidence that you don't want to know the law. That's fine, but if you're going to preach about things you clearly don't know, your ignorance will show. Another fact which is fine with me.

I'm sorry that facts hurt you. ouch.

cmbs,

Mobileread is a friendly community where we make it a point to try (not always successfully, but we do try) to keep discussion on a friendly level. People can be wrong about something - for example, I have just given you a reference to a Supreme Court decision which shows that you are wrong about TV recording and "fair use" - but there are nice ways to say "you're wrong" and there are not so nice ways. Please can you try to use the former - it makes this a much more pleasant place to be.

Thank you for your cooperation in this.

Moderator.

cmbs
01-18-2008, 02:22 PM
No, I'm sorry, but that very specifically is a matter of "Fair Use", and when video recorders first appeared, movie studios tried to get them outlawed under copyright law on the grounds that the recording of copyrighted TV shows was an imfringement. The court case which decided the matter was the decision of the US Supreme Court:

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices cannot be liable for infringement.

This Supreme Court decision established the general legal principle, which has been applied more recently in file sharing court cases, that a device which has the capability of being used for copyright-infringement purposes can be legally used if it can be shown that it also has significant non-infringing uses.

Yeah well, you haven't provided a link, and therefore I can't read it for myself and check if you're right or not. (don't bother, I'm not going to)

You may be right. I am not a lawyer and am not going to go researching today. I'm not doing anything illegal, or even close to illegal, so I don't have any need to.

If you are right, it still only refers to copying that is NOT DISTRIBUTED. I already said I think that's legal in the US. I didn't think it was part of the Fair Use laws, but maybe it is.

What I said still holds true for distributing copyrighted work. I am not going to go researching and quoting. Anyone interested can go learn for themselves. If you find I'm wrong, more power to ya.

JSWolf
01-18-2008, 03:53 PM
If Sony deliberately leaked that coupon code, then it's not "stealing", is it? If it was only intended for new purchasers then, as I commented in the original thread on the subject, I personally considering it little short of theft (and certainly fraud) to use it.
I don't think Sony leaked the code. I think it was just stupidity to have used the same code for everyone. I think that it is possible that people compared codes and found out that they got the same code or that someone gave the code to someone else and it worked and then it was leaked that way. So (IMHO) since this is not a Sony leaked code, everyone who was not entitled to use it who did use it committed the crime of theft.

cmbs
01-18-2008, 04:35 PM
Ok, here is a page on Fair Use. You got me wondering why I didn't think copying for personal use is part of the Fair Use laws.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

It doesn't mention copying for personal use. I'm not saying this proves that copying for personal use is or isn't part of the Fair Use laws. Seems like it might be.

I'm also pretty sure that I have read about copying for personal use, and that it is legal (in the US). I'm talking about making a backup copy of a cd, something you already own. I also think it's legal to use a copyright image in your home for your own personal use . . . things like that. You're not selling or distributing the work, and you obtained the work legally.

The laws are complicated and I have no reason or desire to spend hours and hours trying to understand them. I understand them well enough to be confident I'm not breaking them.

This is not meant to be an argument and I'm not going to get into it. It's only meant to show you the spirit of Fair Use. The page talks about using portions of works, for reasons such as research and education, and only in ways that are non-commercial and will not infringe upon the market for the copyrighted work (why illegal digital books are illegal; plus the fact that only a portion is considered fair use, not the entire work).

The page suggests that if in doubt, you should get permission from the copyright holder.

If you are honestly interested in learning about copyright, you'll go research it for yourself; if you're not, nothing I can say will convince you. And I'm not an expert anyway.

tompe
01-18-2008, 04:47 PM
I gave you the url, I gave you some comments. The copyright site is not hard to search. I'm not researching for you. If you're interested as you say you are, research it for yourself.

What you said was;

And I specifically called the digital versions illegal: if you have any illegal versions, that is illegal, regardless of your opinion.


I accept that the copyright laws can make it illegal to obtain something or to distribute something. What i wondered was how they or they in cooperation with other laws makes it illegal to have something. I am still not convinced that it is illegal in the US.

How it works where I live is for example that stealing a physical object is illegal and if you get caught this object will be confiscated. But having the object I do not think is illegal (I cannot remeber ever hearing about such a crime and a name for it but I can be mistaken). The same thing definitely holds when the crime is not theft but making a copy.

So therefore I tought it would be nice to read about how you implement a law system were having a copy of something is illegal.

cmbs
01-18-2008, 05:11 PM
What you said was;


I accept that the copyright laws can make it illegal to obtain something or to distribute something. What i wondered was how they or they in cooperation with other laws makes it illegal to have something. I am still not convinced that it is illegal in the US.

How it works where I live is for example that stealing a physical object is illegal and if you get caught this object will be confiscated. But having the object I do not think is illegal (I cannot remeber ever hearing about such a crime and a name for it but I can be mistaken). The same thing definitely holds when the crime is not theft but making a copy.

So therefore I tought it would be nice to read about how you implement a law system were having a copy of something is illegal.

I really have no idea. We can argue what's legal and that's a completely different thing from discussing how you're going to enforce the law. My position is if it's illegal, you shouldn't do it. Just because you're not caught doesn't magically make it ok.

As far as if it's legal to have possession of an illegal copy of something, as opposed to how you obtained it, sheesh. What is your point? Are you trying to excuse illegal activity?

If someone steals a chair, they've broken the law. If they sell the stolen chair, I think they've broken another law. If the person buying the chair has no clue it's stolen, I'm not sure if they're breaking the law. Probably so, even though they're ignorant of it. If they give the chair to their friend and the friend keeps it in his home, is it illegal for him to possess that stolen chair? I have no idea. But if it's found to be stolen, it should be returned to it's rightful owner, and certainly the original thief should be held responsible.

At the same time, if the purchaser knows they're buying stolen items, they are encouraging the illegal activity.

I am going to make zero attempt to look up the laws regarding this, because I'm not that interested, and I'm not stealing, nor am I buying questionable furniture.

Where are the books coming from? If you know the publisher isn't selling digital versions, then it's safe to assume (unless you made it yourself and have not distributed it at all) that the copy is illegal.

---------------------
I did want to add to my previous post why illegal books are illegal, in my opinion:

1. Distributing may infringe on the market value of the legal copies.
2. Only a portion is considered to be Fair Use, not the entire work.
3. "Entertainment" is nowhere near the scholarly type valid reasons for Fair Use to apply.

tompe
01-18-2008, 05:43 PM
As far as if it's legal to have possession of an illegal copy of something, as opposed to how you obtained it, sheesh. What is your point? Are you trying to excuse illegal activity?


You have still not given a definition of what "illegal copy" is so it is hard to know what you mean. Do you mean a copy obtained in an illegal way? Or do you mean something else? Also the dicsussion started with the example where the copy was a copy of something you owned in another form.

My point is that you are saying things like:

Well, having an illegal digital copy of a book you own in paper form is illegal, regardless of your opinion of it. Your opinion has nothing to do with the law. Perhaps you don't see it as illegal because you're busy telling yourself lies to comfort your guilty conscience?

My only point is if you are right or not in this claim. If you are wrong then you should not claim it. And in the text it seemed like you knew the law but that was obviously not so.

cmbs
01-18-2008, 06:37 PM
1. Yes I did.
2. That's ridiculous.

I gave you the link to the copyright office because I thought you were interested in the law. I got that silly idea because you said you were interested in the law. I know it can be hard to find that kind of site in another country, so I gave it to you. Now I see you are only interested in playing stupid games. Well, I'm not.

Alexander Turcic
01-19-2008, 07:02 AM
Relax everyone. Copyright laws, Fair Use, DRM are all complex topics and it's cool to discuss them here; but, let's remain civil and friendly with each other.

Thanks.

HarryT
01-19-2008, 08:40 AM
Yeah well, you haven't provided a link, and therefore I can't read it for myself and check if you're right or not. (don't bother, I'm not going to)


I gave you the case number in the Supreme Court: 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

Here's a link to the actual judgement:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=464&page=417